TORTS - 10. Jarco Marketing Corp. v. CA

9/20/2016 129792
: December 21, 1999 : C. J. Davide Jr. : First Division
129792 : December 21, 1999 : C. J. Davide Jr. : First Division
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 129792. December 21, 1999]
JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION, LEONARDO KONG, JOSE TIOPE and ELISA PANELO, petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CONRADO C. AGUILAR and CRISELDA R. AGUILAR, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners seek the reversal of the
17 June 1996 decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. No. CV 37937 and the resolution[2]denying their
motion for reconsideration. The assailed decision set aside the 15 January 1992 judgment of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 60 in Civil Case No. 7119 and ordered petitioners to pay damages and
attorneys fees to private respondents Conrado and Criselda (CRISELDA) Aguilar.
Petitioner Jarco Marketing Corporation is the owner of Syvels Department Store, Makati City. Petitioners
Leonardo Kong, Jose Tiope and Elisa Panelo are the stores branch manager, operations manager, and
supervisor, respectively. Private respondents are spouses and the parents of Zhieneth Aguilar (ZHIENETH).
In the afternoon of 9 May 1983, CRISELDA and ZHIENETH were at the 2nd floor of Syvels Department Store,
Makati City. CRISELDA was signing her credit card slip at the payment and verification counter when she felt a
sudden gust of wind and heard a loud thud. She looked behind her. She then beheld her daughter ZHIENETH
on the floor, her young body pinned by the bulk of the stores giftwrapping counter/structure. ZHIENETH was
crying and screaming for help. Although shocked, CRISELDA was quick to ask the assistance of the people
around in lifting the counter and retrieving ZHIENETH from the floor.[3]
ZHIENETH was quickly rushed to the Makati Medical Center where she was operated on. The next day
ZHIENETH lost her speech and thereafter communicated with CRISELDA by writing on a magic slate. The
injuries she sustained took their toil on her young body. She died fourteen (14) days after the accident or on 22
May 1983, on the hospital bed. She was six years old.[4]
The cause of her death was attributed to the injuries she sustained. The provisional medical certificate[5] issued
by ZHIENETHs attending doctor described the extent of her injuries:
Diagnoses:
1. Shock, severe, sec. to intraabdominal injuries due to blunt injury
2. Hemorrhage, massive, intraperitoneal sec. to laceration, (L) lobe liver
3. Rupture, stomach, anterior & posterior walls
4. Complete transection, 4th position, duodenum
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/129792.htm 1/10
9/20/2016 129792 : December 21, 1999 : C. J. Davide Jr. : First Division
5. Hematoma, extensive, retroperitoneal
6. Contusion, lungs, severe
CRITICAL
After the burial of their daughter, private respondents demanded upon petitioners the reimbursement of the
hospitalization, medical bills and wake and funeral expenses[6] which they had incurred. Petitioners refused to
pay. Consequently, private respondents filed a complaint for damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 7119
wherein they sought the payment of P157,522.86 for actual damages, P300,000 for moral damages, P20,000
for attorneys fees and an unspecified amount for loss of income and exemplary damages.
In their answer with counterclaim, petitioners denied any liability for the injuries and consequent death of
ZHIENETH. They claimed that CRISELDA was negligent in exercising care and diligence over her daughter by
allowing her to freely roam around in a store filled with glassware and appliances. ZHIENETH too, was guilty of
contributory negligence since she climbed the counter, triggering its eventual collapse on her. Petitioners also
emphasized that the counter was made of sturdy wood with a strong support; it never fell nor collapsed for the
past fifteen years since its construction.Additionally, petitioner Jarco Marketing Corporation maintained that it
observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection, supervision and control of its employees.
The other petitioners likewise raised due care and diligence in the performance of their duties and countered
that the complaint was malicious for which they suffered besmirched reputation and mental anguish. They
sought the dismissal of the complaint and an award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees in
their favor.
In its decision[7] the trial court dismissed the complaint and counterclaim after finding that the preponderance of
the evidence favored petitioners. It ruled that the proximate cause of the fall of the counter on ZHIENETH was
her act of clinging to it. It believed petitioners witnesses who testified that ZHIENETH clung to the counter,
afterwhich the structure and the girl fell with the structure falling on top of her, pinning her stomach. In contrast,
none of private respondents witnesses testified on how the counter fell. The trial court also held that
CRISELDAs negligence contributed to ZHIENETHs accident.
In absolving petitioners from any liability, the trial court reasoned that the counter was situated at the end or
corner of the 2nd floor as a precautionary measure hence, it could not be considered as an attractive nuisance.
[8] The counter was higher than ZHIENETH. It has been in existence for fifteen years. Its structure was safe
and wellbalanced. ZHIENETH, therefore, had no business climbing on and clinging to it.
Private respondents appealed the decision, attributing as errors of the trial court its findings that: (1) the
proximate cause of the fall of the counter was ZHIENETHs misbehavior; (2) CRISELDA was negligent in her
care of ZHIENETH; (3) petitioners were not negligent in the maintenance of the counter; and (4) petitioners
were not liable for the death of ZHIENETH.
Further, private respondents asserted that ZHIENETH should be entitled to the conclusive presumption that a
child below nine (9) years is incapable of contributory negligence. And even if ZHIENETH, at six (6) years old,
was already capable of contributory negligence, still it was physically impossible for her to have propped herself
on the counter. She had a small frame (four feet high and seventy pounds) and the counter was much higher
and heavier than she was. Also, the testimony of one of the stores former employees, Gerardo Gonzales, who
accompanied ZHIENETH when she was brought to the emergency room of the Makati Medical Center belied
petitioners theory that ZHIENETH climbed the counter. Gonzales claimed that when ZHIENETH was asked by
the doctor what she did, ZHIENETH replied, [N]othing, I did not come near the counter and the counter just fell
on me.[9] Accordingly, Gonzales testimony on ZHIENETHs spontaneous declaration should not only be
considered as part of res gestae but also accorded credit.
Moreover, negligence could not be imputed to CRISELDA for it was reasonable for her to have let go of
ZHIENETH at the precise moment that she was signing the credit card slip.Finally, private respondents
vigorously maintained that the proximate cause of ZHIENETHs death, was petitioners negligence in failing to
institute measures to have the counter permanently nailed.On the other hand, petitioners argued that private
respondents raised purely factual issues which could no longer be disturbed. They explained that ZHIENETHs
death while unfortunate and tragic, was an accident for which neither CRISELDA nor even ZHIENETH could
entirely be held faultless and blameless. Further, petitioners adverted to the trial courts rejection of Gonzales
testimony as unworthy of credence.
As to private respondents claim that the counter should have been nailed to the ground, petitioners justified that
it was not necessary. The counter had been in existence for several years without any prior accident and was
deliberately placed at a corner to avoid such accidents. Truth to tell, they acted without fault or negligence for
they had exercised due diligence on the matter. In fact, the criminal case[10] for homicide through simple
negligence filed by private respondents against the individual petitioners was dismissed; a verdict of acquittal
was rendered in their favor.
The Court of Appeals, however, decided in favor of private respondents and reversed the appealed judgment. It
found that petitioners were negligent in maintaining a structurally dangerous counter. The counter was shaped
like an inverted L[11] with a top wider than the base. It was top heavy and the weight of the upper portion was
neither evenly distributed nor supported by its narrow base. Thus, the counter was defective, unstable and
dangerous; a downward pressure on the overhanging portion or a push from the front could cause the counter
to fall. Two former employees of petitioners had already previously brought to the attention of the management
the danger the counter could cause. But the latter ignored their concern. The Court of Appeals faulted the
petitioners for this omission, and concluded that the incident that befell ZHIENETH could have been avoided
had petitioners repaired the defective counter. It was inconsequential that the counter had been in use for some
time without a prior incident.
The Court of Appeals declared that ZHIENETH, who was below seven (7) years old at the time of the incident,
was absolutely incapable of negligence or other tort. It reasoned that since a child under nine (9) years could
not be held liable even for an intentional wrong, then the sixyear old ZHIENETH could not be made to account
for a mere mischief or reckless act. It also absolved CRISELDA of any negligence, finding nothing wrong or out
of the ordinary in momentarily allowing ZHIENETH to walk while she signed the document at the nearby
counter.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the testimonies of the witnesses of petitioners. It found them biased and
prejudiced. It instead gave credit to the testimony of disinterested witness Gonzales. The Court of Appeals then
awarded P99,420.86 as actual damages, the amount representing the hospitalization expenses incurred by
private respondents as evidenced by the hospital's statement of account.[12] It denied an award for funeral
expenses for lack of proof to substantiate the same. Instead, a compensatory damage of P50,000 was awarded
for the death of ZHIENETH.
We quote the dispositive portion of the assailed decision,[13] thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of the lower court is SET ASIDE and another one is entered
against [petitioners], ordering them to pay jointly and severally unto [private respondents] the following:
1. P50,000.00 by way of compensatory damages for the death of Zhieneth Aguilar, with legal interest (6% p.a.)
from 27 April 1984;
2. P99,420.86 as reimbursement for hospitalization expenses incurred; with legal interest (6% p.a.) from 27
April 1984;
3. P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages;
4. P20,000.00 in the concept of attorneys fees; and
5. Costs.
Private respondents sought a reconsideration of the decision but the same was denied in the Court of Appeals
resolution[14] of 16 July 1997.
Petitioners now seek the reversal of the Court of Appeals decision and the reinstatement of the judgment of the
trial court. Petitioners primarily argue that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the factual findings and
conclusions of the trial court. They stress that since the action was based on tort, any finding of negligence on
the part of the private respondents would necessarily negate their claim for damages, where said negligence
was the proximate cause of the injury sustained. The injury in the instant case was the death of ZHIENETH. The
proximate cause was ZHIENETHs act of clinging to the counter. This act in turn caused the counter to fall on
her. This and CRISELDAs contributory negligence, through her failure to provide the proper care and attention
to her child while inside the store, nullified private respondents claim for damages. It is also for these reasons
that parents are made accountable for the damage or injury inflicted on others by their minor children. Under
these circumstances, petitioners could not be held responsible for the accident that befell ZHIENETH.Petitioners
also assail the credibility of Gonzales who was already separated from Syvels at the time he testified; hence, his
testimony might have been tarnished by illfeelings against them.For their part, private respondents principally
reiterated their arguments that neither ZHIENETH nor CRISELDA was negligent at any time while inside the
store; the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals are substantiated by the evidence on record; the
testimony of Gonzales, who heard ZHIENETH comment on the incident while she was in the hospitals
emergency room should receive credence; and finally, ZHIENETHs part of the res gestae declaration that she
did nothing to cause the heavy structure to fall on her should be considered as the correct version of the
gruesome events.We deny the petition.The two issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the death of ZHIENETH
was accidental or attributable to negligence; and (2) in case of a finding of negligence, whether the same was
attributable to private respondents for maintaining a defective counter or to CRISELDA and ZHIENETH for
failing to exercise due and reasonable care while inside the store premises.
An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant.[15] It is
a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without any human agency, or if happening
wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by
the person to whom it happens.[16]
On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something
which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.[17] Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection
of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.[18]
Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the other. Accident occurs when
the person concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is not caused by fault of any person and which could
not have been prevented by any means suggested by common prudence.[19]
The test in determining the existence of negligence is enunciated in the landmark case of Picart v. Smith,[20]
thus: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.[21]
We rule that the tragedy which befell ZHIENETH was no accident and that ZHIENETHs death could only be
attributed to negligence.We quote the testimony of Gerardo Gonzales who was at the scene of the incident and
accompanied CRISELDA and ZHIENETH to the hospital:
Q While at the Makati Medical Center, did you hear or notice anything while the child was being treated?
A At the emergency room we were all surrounding the child. And when the doctor asked the child what did you
do, the child said nothing, I did not come near the counter and the counter just fell on me.
Q (COURT TO ATTY. BELTRAN)
You want the words in Tagalog to be translated?
ATTY. BELTRAN
Yes, your Honor.
COURT
Granted. Intercalate wala po, hindi po ako lumapit doon. Basta bumagsak.[22]
This testimony of Gonzales pertaining to ZHIENETHs statement formed (and should be admitted as) part of the
res gestae under Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, thus:
Part of res gestae. Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately
prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the
res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
It is axiomatic that matters relating to declarations of pain or suffering and statements made to a physician are
generally considered declarations and admissions.[23] All that is required for their admissibility as part of the res
gestae is that they be made or uttered under the influence of a startling event before the declarant had the time
to think and concoct a falsehood as witnessed by the person who testified in court. Under the circumstances
thus described, it is unthinkable for ZHIENETH, a child of such tender age and in extreme pain, to have lied to a
doctor whom she trusted with her life. We therefore accord credence to Gonzales testimony on the matter, i.e.,
ZHIENETH performed no act that facilitated her tragic death. Sadly, petitioners did, through their negligence or
omission to secure or make stable the counters base.
Gonzales earlier testimony on petitioners insistence to keep and maintain the structurally unstable giftwrapping
counter proved their negligence, thus:
Q When you assumed the position as gift wrapper at the second floor, will you please describe the gift wrapping
counter, were you able to examine?
A Because every morning before I start working I used to clean that counter and since it is not nailed and it was
only standing on the floor, it was shaky.
xxx
Q Will you please describe the counter at 5:00 oclock [sic] in the afternoon on [sic] May 9 1983?
A At that hour on May 9, 1983, that counter was standing beside the verification counter. And since the top of it
was heavy and considering that it was not nailed, it can collapse at anytime, since the top is heavy.
xxx
Q And what did you do?
A I informed Mr. Maat about that counter which is [sic] shaky and since Mr. Maat is fond of putting display
decorations on tables, he even told me that I would put some decorations. But since I told him that it not [sic]
nailed and it is shaky he told me better inform also the company about it. And since the company did not do
anything about the counter, so I also did not do anything about the counter.[24] [Emphasis supplied]
Ramon Guevarra, another former employee, corroborated the testimony of Gonzales, thus:
Q Will you please described [sic] to the honorable Court the counter where you were assigned in January
1983?
xxx
A That counter assigned to me was when my supervisor ordered me to carry that counter to another place. I
told him that the counter needs nailing and it has to be nailed because it might cause injury or accident to
another since it was shaky.
Q When that gift wrapping counter was transferred at the second floor on February 12, 1983, will you please
describe that to the honorable Court?
A I told her that the counter wrapper [sic] is really in good [sic] condition; it was shaky. I told her that we had to
nail it.
Q When you said she, to whom are you referring to [sic]?
A I am referring to Ms. Panelo, sir.
Q And what was the answer of Ms. Panelo when you told her that the counter was shaky?
A She told me Why do you have to teach me. You are only my subordinate and you are to teach me? And she
even got angry at me when I told her that.
xxx
Q From February 12, 1983 up to May 9, 1983, what if any, did Ms. Panelo or any employee of the management
do to that (sic)
xxx
Witness:
None, sir. They never nailed the counter. They only nailed the counter after the accident happened.[25]
[Emphasis supplied]
Without doubt, petitioner Panelo and another store supervisor were personally informed of the danger posed by
the unstable counter. Yet, neither initiated any concrete action to remedy the situation nor ensure the safety of
the stores employees and patrons as a reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have done. Thus, as
confronted by the situation petitioners miserably failed to discharge the due diligence required of a good father
of a family.On the issue of the credibility of Gonzales and Guevarra, petitioners failed to establish that the
formers testimonies were biased and tainted with partiality. Therefore, the allegation that Gonzales and
Guevarras testimonies were blemished by ill feelings against petitioners since they (Gonzales and Guevarra)
were already separated from the company at the time their testimonies were offered in court was but mere
speculation and deserved scant consideration.
It is settled that when the issue concerns the credibility of witnesses, the appellate courts will not as a general
rule disturb the findings of the trial court, which is in a better position to determine the same. The trial court has
the distinct advantage of actually hearing the testimony of and observing the deportment of the witnesses.[26]
However, the rule admits of exceptions such as when its evaluation was reached arbitrarily or it overlooked or
failed to appreciate some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the
case.[27] In the instant case, petitioners failed to bring their claim within the exception.
Anent the negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, we apply the conclusive presumption that favors children below
nine (9) years old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. In his book,[28] former Judge Cezar S.
Sangco stated:
In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without
discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal liability. The same presumption and a like exemption
from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person over nine and under fifteen years of age, unless it is shown
that he has acted with discernment. Since negligence may be a felony and a quasidelict and required
discernment as a condition of liability, either criminal or civil, a child under nine years of age is, by analogy,
conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence; and that the presumption of lack of discernment or
incapacity for negligence in the case of a child over nine but under fifteen years of age is a rebuttable one,
under our law. The rule, therefore, is that a child under nine years of age must be conclusively presumed
incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. [Emphasis supplied]
Even if we attribute contributory negligence to ZHIENETH and assume that she climbed over the counter, no
injury should have occurred if we accept petitioners theory that the counter was stable and sturdy. For if that
was the truth, a frail sixyear old could not have caused the counter to collapse. The physical analysis of the
counter by both the trial court and Court of Appeals and a scrutiny of the evidence[29]on record reveal
otherwise, i.e., it was not durable after all. Shaped like an inverted L, the counter was heavy, huge, and its top
laden with formica. It protruded towards the customer waiting area and its base was not secured.[30]
CRISELDA too, should be absolved from any contributory negligence. Initially, ZHIENETH held on to
CRISELDAs waist, later to the latters hand.[31] CRISELDA momentarily released the childs hand from her
clutch when she signed her credit card slip. At this precise moment, it was reasonable and usual for CRISELDA
to let go of her child. Further, at the time ZHIENETH was pinned down by the counter, she was just a foot away
from her mother; and the giftwrapping counter was just four meters away from CRISELDA.[32] The time and
distance were both significant. ZHIENETH was near her mother and did not loiter as petitioners would want to
impress upon us. She even admitted to the doctor who treated her at the hospital that she did not do anything;
the counter just fell on her.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of the
Court of Appeals of 17 June 1996 in C.A. G.R. No. CV 37937 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.SO ORDERED.
Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, and YnaresSantiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Annex A of Petition; Rollo, 3647. Per Justice Godardo A. Jacinto, with Justices Salome A. Montoya and
Maximiano C. Asuncion, concurring.
[2] Annex B of Petition; Rollo, 49.
[3] TSN, 13 February 1985, 5, 6, 78, 2122, 31.
[4] Id., 32, 36, 42, 52.
[5] Original Record (OR), 8.
[6] Exhibit H.
[7] OR, 603612. Per Judge Pedro N. Lagui.
[8] One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract
children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting
thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a tresspasser in
the premises.
The principal reason for the doctrine is that the condition or appliance in question although its danger is
apparent to those of age, is so enticing or alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach,
get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an implied invitation to such children. (Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v.
Balandan, et al., 488, 490 [1952].
[9] TSN, 10 September 1987, 12.
[10] Criminal Case No. 118986 filed with the Makati Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 61.
[11] Exhibit D.
[12] Exhibit F.
[13] Supra note 1.
[14] Supra note 2.
[15] See Novo & Co. v. Ainsworth, 26 Phil. 380, 387 [1913].
[16] Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed. 1979, 14.
[17] McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 211 SCRA 517, 539 [1992] citing Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed.,
1979, 930.
[18] U.S. v. Barias, 23 Phil. 434, 437 [1912] citing Judge Cooley's work on Torts, 3rd ed., 1324.
[19] See Cavanaugh v. Jepson Iowa, 167 N.W.2d 616, 623 [1969]. See also Restatement, Second, Torts 8.
[20] 37 Phil. 809 [1918].
[21] Ibid, 813.
[22] TSN, 10 September 1987, 12, 13.
[23] Ricardo J. Francisco, III Evidence, 1997, 591 citing Keefe v. State of Arizona, 60 Ariz. 293; Stukas v.
Warfield, Pratt, Howell Co., 175 N.W. 81, 85 [1919].
[24] TSN, 10 September 1987, 8, 9, 11.
[25] TSN, 2 October 1987, 9, 11.
[26] See BPI Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 601, 608 [1991]; Geronimo v. Court of Appeals,
224 SCRA 494, 498 [1993].
[27] Borillo v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 130, 140141 [1992]; McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra
note 16, 537; Salvador v. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 239, 253 [1995].
[28] I Philippine Law On Torts And Damages, 7071 (1993).
[29] Exhibit D.
[30] Exhibits K, M, and N. The counter was made of heavy wood measuring about 4 to 5 meters in height; 1
meter in length; and 2 to 3 meters in width; with four (4) square legs. Its top was made of 5 inch thick wood
covered by formica about inch thick.
[31] TSN, 13 February 15, 20.
[32] Ibid., 11, 22.

TORTS - 10. Jarco Marketing Corp. v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TORTS - 10. Jarco Marketing Corp. v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/20/2016 129792

You might also like